European Dilemmas of the Biological versus Social Father: The Case of Estonia

Joamets, Kristi; Kerikmäe, Tanel

doi:10.1515/bjlp-2016-0010

Abstract

The current understandings and practices related to biological and social fatherhood raise a crucial legal question about which model of fatherhood determination should be adapted to contemporary society: the model of a biological or social father bearing the rights and obligations related to the child. The general ideologies of being a father and the application of different approaches have been analysed comparatively, also trying to provide the best legal policy to consider when interpreting the rules of parenthood in Estonian Family Law Act and the Estonian legal practice. The paper considers the emerging legal concept of social fatherhood to be an inevitable prerequisite for protection of the interest of the child.

References

1. Abrams, Kerry, and R. Kent Piacenti. “Immigration’s Family Values.” Virginia Law Review 100(4) (2014): 629–649.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Atack, Megan. “Traditional and Functional Views of the Family in the Law.” North East Law Review 56 (2016): 56–61.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Baker, Katharine K. “Bionormativity and the Construction of Parenthood.” Psychology and Feminist Legal Theory. Emory University of Law (Dec. 1-2, 2006).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Boyd, Susan B. “Gendering Legal Parenthood: Bio-Genetic Ties, Intentionally and Responsibly.” Windsor Y.B. Access Just 25 (2007): 1–29.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Brandão, Ana Maria, Alessandra Faria, and Helena Machao. “The legal investigation of biological paternity in Portugal: Gendered roles and representations” (2012) // http://hdl.handle.net/1822/23489.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Britz, Gabriele. “Biological and Social Parenthood”: 170-174. In: Katharina Boele-Woelki, Nina Dethloff, and Werner Gephart, eds. Family Law and Culture in Europe. Developments, Challenges and Opportunities. Cambridge – Antwerp – Portland: Intersentia, 2014.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Browne-Barbour, Vanessa S. “‘Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe’: Disestablishment of Paternity.” Akron L.Rev. 48 (2015): 263–314.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Bryan, Jennifer. “Parenting Rights in California: Marriage v. Biology.” U. S. F. L. Rew 47 (2012-2013): 571–592.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Carbone, June, and Naomi Cahn. “Marriage, Parentage, and Child Support.” Family Law Quaterly 45(2) (2011): 219–240.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Claire Fenton-Glynn. “Consenting Adults: Giving and Receiving Consent to Adoption”: 51–80. In: Claire Fenton-Glynn, ed. Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption. A European Perspective. Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland: Intersentia, 2014.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Coester-Waltjen, Dagmar. “The Impact of the ECHR and ECtHR on European family law”: 49–94. In: Jens M. Scherpe, ed. European Family Law. The Impact of Institutions and Organisations on European Family Law I. Cheltnham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Deech, Ruth. “The Unmarried Father and Human Rights.” Tolley's J. Child L. 4 (1992): 3–10.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Dent, George W., Jr. “Traditional Marriage: Still Forth Defending.” BYU Journal of Public Law Vol 18 (2) (2004): 419–488.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Duggan, Magdalena. “Mater Semper Certa Est, Sed Pater Incertus? Determining Filiation of Children Conceived via Assisted Reproductive Techniques: Comparative Characteristics and Vision for the Future.” Irish Journal of Legal Studies 4(1) (2014): 1–2.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Duncan, William C. “Redefining Marriage, Redefining Parenthood.” Regent J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 157 6 (2013-2014): 157–180.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Feinberg, Jessica. “Exposing the Traditional Marriage Agenda.” Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Vol 7(2) (2012): i–351.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Fenton-Glynn, Claire, ed. Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption. A European Perspective. Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland: Intersentia, 2014.10.1017/9781780684925
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Fenton-Glynn, Claire. “Investigation and determination. Identifying a father”: 51–80. In: Claire Fenton-Glynn, ed. Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption. A European Perspective. Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland: Intersentia, 2014.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Fenton-Glynn, Claire. “Who am I? The Child’s Right to Identity”: 185–210. In: Claire Fenton-Glynn, ed. Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption. A European Perspective. Cambridge-Antwerpen-Portland: Intersentia, 2014.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Hoover, Brandon James. “Establishing the Best Answer to Paternity Disestablishment.” Ohio Northern University Law Review (2011): 145-167.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Jacobs, Melanie B. “Intentional Parenthood Influence: Rethinking Procreative Autonomy and Federal Paternity Establishment Policy.” Journal of Gender, Social Policy & The Law 20:3 (2012): 489-508.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Joslin, Courtney G. “Protecting Children: Marriage, Gender, and Assisted Reproductive Technology.” The Dukeminier Awards – Best Sexual Orientation and Sexual Identity Law Review Vol 10 (1) (2011): 43–96.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Kamei, Shelly Ann. “Partitioning Paternity: The German Approach to Disjuncture Between Genetic and Legal Paternity With Implications for American Courts.” San Diego Int’l L. J. 11 (2009-2010): 509–559.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Kelly, Fiona. “Producing Paternity: The Role of Legal Fatherhood in Maintaining the Traditional Family.” Can. J. Women & L. 21 (2009): 315–351.10.3138/cjwl.21.2.315
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Lafferriere, Jorge Nicolás. “Artificial Reproductive Techniques and Parenting: Trends and Paradoxes.” Intl. J. Jurisprudence Fam. 2 (2011): 265–284.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Maillard, Kevin Noble. “Serial Paternity.” Mich. St. L. Rev. (2013): 1369–1384.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Margalit, Yehezkel, Orri Adam Levy, and John D. Loike. “The New Frontier of Advanced Reproductive Technology: Reevaluating Modern Legal Parenthood.” Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 37 (2014): 107–139.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. Mulligan, Andrea. “Constitutional Parenthood in the Age of Assisted Reproduction.” Irish Jurist N.S. 51 (2014): 90–122.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. Scherpe, Jens M. Organic European family law. The Present and Future of European Family Law IV. Cheltnham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.10.4337/9781785363078
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. Scherpe, Jens M. Parentage and surrogacy in a European perspective. European Family Law. Family Law in a European Perspective III. Cheltnham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.10.4337/9781785363054.00009
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
31. Singer, Anna. “The Right to the Child to Parents”: 137–149. In: Katharina Boele-Woelki, Nina Dethloff, and Werner Gephart, eds. Family Law and Culture. Cambridge: Intersentia, 2014.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
32. Steinbock, Bonnie. “Defining Parenthood.” Int'l J. Child. Rts. 13 (2005): 287–310.10.1163/1571818054545213
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
33. Steiner, Eva. “The Tension Between Legal, Biological and Social Conceptions of Parenthood in English Law.” Report to the XVII^th International Congress of Comparative Law (July 2006). Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 10.3: 1–14.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
34. Strumpf, Andrea E. “Redefining Mother. A Legal Matrix for New Reproductive Technologies.” Yale L. J. 96 (1986): 187–208.10.2307/796440
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
35. Swennen, Frederik. “The changing concept of ‘family’ and challenges for family law in the Benelux countries”: 5–21. In: Jens M. Scherpe, ed. European Family Law. The Changing Concept of ‘Family’ and Challenges for Domestic Family Law II. Cheltnham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
36. Troiano, Stefano. “Understanding and Redefining the Rationale of State Policies Allowing Anonymous Birth: A Difficult Balance Between Conflicting Interests.” Intl. J. Jurisprudence Fam. 4 (2013): 177–204.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
37. Wardle, Lynn D. “Children and the Future of Marriage.” Regent University Law Review Vol 17 (2) (2004-2005): 279–310.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
1. Anayo vs Germany. ECtHR, Appl No 20578/07, 2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Berrehab vs Netherlands. ECtHR, Appl No 10730/84, 1998.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Elsholz vs Germany. ECtHR, Appl No 255735/94, 2000.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Johansen vs Norway. ECtHR, Appl No 17383/90, 1996.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Kroon and others vs the Netherlands. ECtHR, Appl No 00018535/91,1994.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Nylund vs Finland. ECtHR, Appl No 27110/95, 1999.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Rozanski vs Poland. ECtHR, Appl No 55339/00, 2006.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Shneider vs Germany. ECtHR, 1998.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Yousef vs Netherlands. ECtHR, Appl No 33711/96, 2001.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Zaunegger vs Germany. ECtHR, Appl No 22028/04.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

European Dilemmas of the Biological versus Social Father: The Case of Estonia

Abstract

Paradigm

My account